Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1791

control, N = 901

treatment, N = 891

p-value2

age

177

50.88 ± 12.64 (25 - 75)

50.92 ± 12.93 (25 - 75)

50.84 ± 12.43 (28 - 73)

0.967

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

179

0.737

f

143 (80%)

71 (79%)

72 (81%)

m

36 (20%)

19 (21%)

17 (19%)

occupation

179

0.926

day_training

4 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

full_time

22 (12%)

12 (13%)

10 (11%)

homemaker

23 (13%)

11 (12%)

12 (13%)

other

2 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.2%)

part_time

32 (18%)

16 (18%)

16 (18%)

retired

43 (24%)

21 (23%)

22 (25%)

self_employ

7 (3.9%)

4 (4.4%)

3 (3.4%)

student

2 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.2%)

t_and_e

2 (1.1%)

1 (1.1%)

1 (1.1%)

unemploy

42 (23%)

23 (26%)

19 (21%)

marital

179

0.958

cohabitation

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.1%)

divore

19 (11%)

11 (12%)

8 (9.0%)

in_relationship

4 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

married

56 (31%)

26 (29%)

30 (34%)

none

85 (47%)

43 (48%)

42 (47%)

seperation

3 (1.7%)

2 (2.2%)

1 (1.1%)

widow

11 (6.1%)

6 (6.7%)

5 (5.6%)

edu

179

0.457

bachelor

41 (23%)

17 (19%)

24 (27%)

diploma

32 (18%)

21 (23%)

11 (12%)

hd_ad

5 (2.8%)

4 (4.4%)

1 (1.1%)

postgraduate

15 (8.4%)

8 (8.9%)

7 (7.9%)

primary

13 (7.3%)

6 (6.7%)

7 (7.9%)

secondary_1_3

20 (11%)

10 (11%)

10 (11%)

secondary_4_5

43 (24%)

20 (22%)

23 (26%)

secondary_6_7

10 (5.6%)

4 (4.4%)

6 (6.7%)

fam_income

179

0.766

10001_12000

6 (3.4%)

2 (2.2%)

4 (4.5%)

12001_14000

10 (5.6%)

4 (4.4%)

6 (6.7%)

14001_16000

8 (4.5%)

3 (3.3%)

5 (5.6%)

16001_18000

4 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

18001_20000

9 (5.0%)

7 (7.8%)

2 (2.2%)

20001_above

34 (19%)

20 (22%)

14 (16%)

2001_4000

24 (13%)

13 (14%)

11 (12%)

4001_6000

20 (11%)

8 (8.9%)

12 (13%)

6001_8000

17 (9.5%)

9 (10%)

8 (9.0%)

8001_10000

14 (7.8%)

7 (7.8%)

7 (7.9%)

below_2000

33 (18%)

15 (17%)

18 (20%)

medication

179

159 (89%)

79 (88%)

80 (90%)

0.654

onset_duration

177

15.30 ± 10.32 (0 - 56)

15.77 ± 11.29 (0 - 56)

14.80 ± 9.26 (0 - 35)

0.534

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

175

35.70 ± 13.58 (10 - 65)

35.02 ± 12.55 (10 - 61)

36.39 ± 14.60 (14 - 65)

0.505

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1791

control, N = 901

treatment, N = 891

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

179

3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.18 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.10 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

0.671

recovery_stage_b

179

17.89 ± 2.83 (8 - 24)

18.01 ± 2.90 (8 - 24)

17.76 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)

0.561

ras_confidence

179

29.89 ± 5.32 (14 - 45)

29.63 ± 5.35 (14 - 42)

30.15 ± 5.32 (18 - 45)

0.521

ras_willingness

179

11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.76 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.82 ± 2.02 (7 - 15)

0.831

ras_goal

179

17.48 ± 3.17 (7 - 25)

17.33 ± 3.16 (7 - 25)

17.63 ± 3.20 (11 - 25)

0.534

ras_reliance

179

13.33 ± 2.90 (5 - 20)

13.11 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

13.55 ± 2.94 (7 - 20)

0.313

ras_domination

179

9.80 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)

10.01 ± 2.49 (3 - 15)

9.60 ± 2.33 (3 - 15)

0.251

symptom

179

29.86 ± 9.12 (14 - 56)

29.98 ± 9.57 (14 - 55)

29.74 ± 8.69 (15 - 56)

0.863

slof_work

179

22.35 ± 4.74 (10 - 30)

22.63 ± 4.38 (12 - 30)

22.07 ± 5.09 (10 - 30)

0.426

slof_relationship

179

25.40 ± 5.87 (9 - 35)

25.13 ± 5.91 (9 - 35)

25.66 ± 5.86 (11 - 35)

0.548

satisfaction

179

20.47 ± 7.14 (5 - 35)

19.80 ± 7.10 (5 - 34)

21.16 ± 7.15 (5 - 35)

0.204

mhc_emotional

179

10.83 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

10.66 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

11.01 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

0.530

mhc_social

179

15.11 ± 5.66 (5 - 30)

15.12 ± 5.80 (5 - 30)

15.10 ± 5.54 (5 - 29)

0.980

mhc_psychological

179

21.79 ± 6.58 (6 - 36)

21.77 ± 6.63 (7 - 36)

21.81 ± 6.57 (6 - 36)

0.966

resilisnce

179

16.45 ± 4.77 (6 - 30)

16.01 ± 4.52 (6 - 30)

16.90 ± 4.99 (6 - 30)

0.214

social_provision

179

13.57 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

13.26 ± 2.74 (5 - 20)

13.89 ± 2.96 (5 - 20)

0.140

els_value_living

179

17.01 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

16.79 ± 3.11 (6 - 24)

17.22 ± 3.26 (5 - 25)

0.362

els_life_fulfill

179

12.74 ± 3.41 (4 - 20)

12.33 ± 3.39 (5 - 20)

13.15 ± 3.40 (4 - 20)

0.111

els

179

29.74 ± 6.04 (9 - 45)

29.12 ± 5.92 (11 - 44)

30.37 ± 6.12 (9 - 45)

0.167

social_connect

179

26.44 ± 9.32 (8 - 48)

26.86 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

26.01 ± 9.54 (8 - 48)

0.546

shs_agency

179

14.35 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)

13.92 ± 4.84 (3 - 23)

14.79 ± 5.35 (3 - 24)

0.259

shs_pathway

179

16.00 ± 4.17 (3 - 24)

15.52 ± 4.22 (3 - 24)

16.48 ± 4.10 (4 - 24)

0.124

shs

179

30.35 ± 8.90 (6 - 48)

29.44 ± 8.71 (6 - 46)

31.27 ± 9.04 (7 - 48)

0.171

esteem

179

12.60 ± 1.57 (9 - 20)

12.60 ± 1.61 (9 - 18)

12.61 ± 1.53 (10 - 20)

0.977

mlq_search

179

14.89 ± 3.54 (3 - 21)

14.58 ± 3.56 (4 - 21)

15.21 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

0.230

mlq_presence

179

13.40 ± 4.39 (3 - 21)

13.31 ± 4.14 (3 - 21)

13.48 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)

0.794

mlq

179

28.29 ± 7.06 (6 - 42)

27.89 ± 6.78 (7 - 40)

28.70 ± 7.35 (6 - 42)

0.446

empower

179

19.20 ± 4.36 (6 - 30)

18.91 ± 4.28 (9 - 30)

19.48 ± 4.45 (6 - 30)

0.382

ismi_resistance

179

14.42 ± 2.58 (5 - 20)

14.44 ± 2.35 (6 - 20)

14.40 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

0.918

ismi_discrimation

179

11.61 ± 3.04 (5 - 20)

11.74 ± 2.91 (5 - 20)

11.48 ± 3.18 (5 - 20)

0.567

sss_affective

179

10.18 ± 3.62 (3 - 18)

10.08 ± 3.53 (3 - 18)

10.28 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.708

sss_behavior

179

9.84 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

9.89 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

9.80 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

0.871

sss_cognitive

179

8.39 ± 3.68 (3 - 18)

8.27 ± 3.59 (3 - 18)

8.51 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

0.666

sss

179

28.41 ± 10.26 (9 - 54)

28.23 ± 10.08 (9 - 54)

28.58 ± 10.50 (9 - 54)

0.820

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.18

0.126

2.93, 3.42

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.077

0.178

-0.426, 0.273

0.668

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.105

0.179

-0.246, 0.455

0.560

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.333

0.262

-0.181, 0.846

0.207

Pseudo R square

0.015

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.306

17.4, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.247

0.433

-1.10, 0.603

0.569

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.280

0.375

-1.01, 0.454

0.456

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.906

0.550

-0.172, 1.98

0.102

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.565

28.5, 30.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.513

0.801

-1.06, 2.08

0.523

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.706

0.554

-0.379, 1.79

0.205

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.25

0.814

-0.342, 2.85

0.127

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.8

0.212

11.3, 12.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.065

0.300

-0.523, 0.653

0.830

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.123

0.234

-0.581, 0.335

0.599

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.516

0.343

-0.157, 1.19

0.136

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.3

0.337

16.7, 18.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.296

0.478

-0.642, 1.23

0.537

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.122

0.373

-0.609, 0.853

0.745

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.668

0.548

-0.406, 1.74

0.226

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.306

12.5, 13.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.439

0.434

-0.412, 1.29

0.313

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.282

0.332

-0.368, 0.932

0.397

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.493

0.487

-0.462, 1.45

0.314

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.0

0.254

9.51, 10.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.416

0.360

-1.12, 0.290

0.250

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.091

0.327

-0.732, 0.549

0.780

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.11

0.479

0.166, 2.05

0.023

Pseudo R square

0.018

symptom

(Intercept)

30.0

0.963

28.1, 31.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.236

1.366

-2.91, 2.44

0.863

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.21

0.820

-2.82, 0.397

0.143

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.518

1.207

-2.88, 1.85

0.669

Pseudo R square

0.006

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.6

0.500

21.7, 23.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.566

0.709

-1.95, 0.823

0.425

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.277

0.513

-1.28, 0.729

0.591

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.611

0.754

-0.867, 2.09

0.420

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.1

0.615

23.9, 26.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.530

0.873

-1.18, 2.24

0.545

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.422

0.656

-1.71, 0.864

0.522

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.814

0.964

-1.08, 2.70

0.400

Pseudo R square

0.006

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.8

0.750

18.3, 21.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.36

1.063

-0.726, 3.44

0.203

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.594

0.695

-0.768, 1.96

0.395

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.04

1.022

-0.964, 3.04

0.312

Pseudo R square

0.020

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.397

9.88, 11.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.356

0.563

-0.748, 1.46

0.528

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.481

0.357

-0.220, 1.18

0.182

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.271

0.526

-1.30, 0.760

0.607

Pseudo R square

0.003

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.617

13.9, 16.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.021

0.876

-1.74, 1.70

0.981

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.945

0.629

-0.289, 2.18

0.136

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.166

0.925

-1.98, 1.65

0.858

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.712

20.4, 23.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.042

1.010

-1.94, 2.02

0.967

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

0.717

-0.386, 2.43

0.158

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.174

1.055

-2.24, 1.89

0.870

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.0

0.489

15.1, 17.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.888

0.693

-0.471, 2.25

0.202

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.409

0.533

-0.637, 1.45

0.445

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.19

0.784

-0.349, 2.72

0.133

Pseudo R square

0.030

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.301

12.7, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.632

0.427

-0.204, 1.47

0.140

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.406

0.329

-1.05, 0.239

0.220

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.789

0.484

-0.159, 1.74

0.106

Pseudo R square

0.028

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.339

16.1, 17.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.436

0.480

-0.506, 1.38

0.365

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.218

0.343

-0.454, 0.890

0.527

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.330

0.504

-0.658, 1.32

0.515

Pseudo R square

0.010

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.349

11.6, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.813

0.495

-0.158, 1.78

0.102

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.292

0.326

-0.346, 0.930

0.371

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.258

0.479

-0.680, 1.20

0.591

Pseudo R square

0.021

els

(Intercept)

29.1

0.634

27.9, 30.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.25

0.899

-0.514, 3.01

0.167

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.541

0.559

-0.556, 1.64

0.336

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.481

0.823

-1.13, 2.09

0.560

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

0.985

24.9, 28.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.844

1.397

-3.58, 1.89

0.546

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.177

0.879

-1.55, 1.90

0.841

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.94

1.294

-5.48, -0.407

0.025

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.9

0.534

12.9, 15.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.864

0.757

-0.620, 2.35

0.255

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.424

0.497

-0.550, 1.40

0.396

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.486

0.732

-0.948, 1.92

0.508

Pseudo R square

0.014

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.5

0.432

14.7, 16.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.961

0.612

-0.239, 2.16

0.118

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.488

0.430

-0.354, 1.33

0.259

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.158

0.632

-1.40, 1.08

0.803

Pseudo R square

0.014

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

0.924

27.6, 31.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.83

1.310

-0.742, 4.39

0.165

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.909

0.865

-0.786, 2.60

0.296

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.308

1.272

-2.18, 2.80

0.809

Pseudo R square

0.015

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.163

12.3, 12.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.007

0.231

-0.446, 0.460

0.977

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.048

0.227

-0.493, 0.397

0.832

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.171

0.333

-0.482, 0.823

0.609

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.6

0.366

13.9, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.636

0.519

-0.382, 1.65

0.222

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.776

0.454

-0.114, 1.67

0.090

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.887

0.667

-2.19, 0.419

0.186

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.456

12.4, 14.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.172

0.647

-1.10, 1.44

0.791

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.853

0.505

-0.136, 1.84

0.094

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.189

0.741

-1.64, 1.26

0.799

Pseudo R square

0.007

mlq

(Intercept)

27.9

0.740

26.4, 29.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.808

1.049

-1.25, 2.86

0.442

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.63

0.855

-0.048, 3.30

0.060

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.05

1.256

-3.51, 1.41

0.405

Pseudo R square

0.008

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.457

18.0, 19.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.572

0.649

-0.699, 1.84

0.379

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.976

0.458

0.079, 1.87

0.035

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.976

0.673

-2.29, 0.343

0.150

Pseudo R square

0.007

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.265

13.9, 15.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.040

0.375

-0.776, 0.696

0.915

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.132

0.320

-0.496, 0.760

0.681

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.485

0.470

-0.436, 1.41

0.304

Pseudo R square

0.007

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.7

0.328

11.1, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.261

0.465

-1.17, 0.651

0.575

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.286

0.427

-1.12, 0.551

0.504

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.520

0.626

-1.75, 0.707

0.408

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.383

9.33, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.203

0.543

-0.861, 1.27

0.709

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.066

0.367

-0.785, 0.653

0.857

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.16

0.540

-2.22, -0.106

0.033

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.89

0.390

9.12, 10.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.091

0.554

-1.18, 0.994

0.869

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.306

0.375

-1.04, 0.430

0.417

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.375

0.552

-1.46, 0.708

0.499

Pseudo R square

0.005

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.27

0.384

7.51, 9.02

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.239

0.545

-0.829, 1.31

0.661

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.077

0.394

-0.849, 0.695

0.846

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.813

0.579

-1.95, 0.322

0.164

Pseudo R square

0.006

sss

(Intercept)

28.2

1.079

26.1, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.351

1.531

-2.65, 3.35

0.819

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.489

0.949

-2.35, 1.37

0.607

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.16

1.396

-4.90, 0.572

0.124

Pseudo R square

0.007

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.18 (95% CI [2.93, 3.42], t(260) = 25.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.27], t(260) = -0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.46], t(260) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.85], t(260) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.41, 18.61], t(260) = 58.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.60], t(260) = -0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.45], t(260) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.98], t(260) = 1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.53, 30.74], t(260) = 52.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.08], t(260) = 0.64, p = 0.522; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.79], t(260) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.85], t(260) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.34, 12.17], t(260) = 55.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.65], t(260) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.33], t(260) = -0.53, p = 0.598; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.19], t(260) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.67, 17.99], t(260) = 51.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.23], t(260) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.85], t(260) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.74], t(260) = 1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.51, 13.71], t(260) = 42.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.29], t(260) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93], t(260) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.45], t(260) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.51, 10.51], t(260) = 39.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.29], t(260) = -1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.55], t(260) = -0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [0.17, 2.05], t(260) = 2.31, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.07, 0.85])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.98 (95% CI [28.09, 31.87], t(260) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-2.91, 2.44], t(260) = -0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.40], t(260) = -1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.88, 1.85], t(260) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.63 (95% CI [21.65, 23.61], t(260) = 45.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.82], t(260) = -0.80, p = 0.425; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.73], t(260) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.09], t(260) = 0.81, p = 0.418; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.13 (95% CI [23.93, 26.34], t(260) = 40.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.18, 2.24], t(260) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.86], t(260) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.70], t(260) = 0.84, p = 0.398; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.80 (95% CI [18.33, 21.27], t(260) = 26.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.36, 95% CI [-0.73, 3.44], t(260) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.96], t(260) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.04], t(260) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.88, 11.43], t(260) = 26.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.46], t(260) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.18], t(260) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.76], t(260) = -0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [13.91, 16.33], t(260) = 24.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.70], t(260) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -3.64e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.18], t(260) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.98, 1.65], t(260) = -0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.77 (95% CI [20.37, 23.16], t(260) = 30.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.94, 2.02], t(260) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 6.34e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.43], t(260) = 1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-2.24, 1.89], t(260) = -0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.05, 16.97], t(260) = 32.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.25], t(260) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.45], t(260) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.72], t(260) = 1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.67, 13.85], t(260) = 44.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.47], t(260) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.24], t(260) = -1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.74], t(260) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.79 (95% CI [16.12, 17.45], t(260) = 49.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.38], t(260) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.89], t(260) = 0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.32], t(260) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.65, 13.02], t(260) = 35.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.78], t(260) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.93], t(260) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.20], t(260) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.12 (95% CI [27.88, 30.37], t(260) = 45.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.51, 3.01], t(260) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.64], t(260) = 0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.09], t(260) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.86 (95% CI [24.92, 28.79], t(260) = 27.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-3.58, 1.89], t(260) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.90], t(260) = 0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.94, 95% CI [-5.48, -0.41], t(260) = -2.27, p = 0.023; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.92 (95% CI [12.88, 14.97], t(260) = 26.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.35], t(260) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.40], t(260) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.92], t(260) = 0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.52 (95% CI [14.68, 16.37], t(260) = 35.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.16], t(260) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.33], t(260) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.08], t(260) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.44 (95% CI [27.63, 31.25], t(260) = 31.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.83, 95% CI [-0.74, 4.39], t(260) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.60], t(260) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.18, 2.80], t(260) = 0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.60 (95% CI [12.28, 12.92], t(260) = 77.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.46], t(260) = 0.03, p = 0.977; Std. beta = 4.36e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.40], t(260) = -0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.82], t(260) = 0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.58 (95% CI [13.86, 15.30], t(260) = 39.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.65], t(260) = 1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.67], t(260) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.19, 0.42], t(260) = -1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.42, 14.21], t(260) = 29.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.44], t(260) = 0.27, p = 0.790; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.84], t(260) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.26], t(260) = -0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.89 (95% CI [26.44, 29.34], t(260) = 37.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.86], t(260) = 0.77, p = 0.441; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-0.05, 3.30], t(260) = 1.90, p = 0.057; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-6.76e-03, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-3.51, 1.41], t(260) = -0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.91 (95% CI [18.01, 19.81], t(260) = 41.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.84], t(260) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [0.08, 1.87], t(260) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.02, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.34], t(260) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.44 (95% CI [13.93, 14.96], t(260) = 54.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.70], t(260) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.76], t(260) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.41], t(260) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.74 (95% CI [11.10, 12.39], t(260) = 35.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.65], t(260) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.55], t(260) = -0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.71], t(260) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.08 (95% CI [9.33, 10.83], t(260) = 26.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.27], t(260) = 0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.65], t(260) = -0.18, p = 0.857; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-2.22, -0.11], t(260) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.89 (95% CI [9.12, 10.65], t(260) = 25.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.99], t(260) = -0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.43], t(260) = -0.81, p = 0.415; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.71], t(260) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.27 (95% CI [7.51, 9.02], t(260) = 21.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.31], t(260) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.70], t(260) = -0.20, p = 0.845; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.32], t(260) = -1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.23 (95% CI [26.12, 30.35], t(260) = 26.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-2.65, 3.35], t(260) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-2.35, 1.37], t(260) = -0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-4.90, 0.57], t(260) = -1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

842.758

853.508

-418.379

836.758

recovery_stage_a

random

6

843.289

864.790

-415.644

831.289

5.469

3

0.140

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,293.236

1,303.987

-643.618

1,287.236

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,296.233

1,317.734

-642.117

1,284.233

3.003

3

0.391

ras_confidence

null

3

1,596.210

1,606.960

-795.105

1,590.210

ras_confidence

random

6

1,589.099

1,610.600

-788.550

1,577.099

13.110

3

0.004

ras_willingness

null

3

1,082.298

1,093.048

-538.149

1,076.298

ras_willingness

random

6

1,085.089

1,106.590

-536.545

1,073.089

3.208

3

0.361

ras_goal

null

3

1,332.472

1,343.223

-663.236

1,326.472

ras_goal

random

6

1,333.476

1,354.977

-660.738

1,321.476

4.996

3

0.172

ras_reliance

null

3

1,280.015

1,290.766

-637.008

1,274.015

ras_reliance

random

6

1,278.848

1,300.349

-633.424

1,266.848

7.168

3

0.067

ras_domination

null

3

1,206.702

1,217.452

-600.351

1,200.702

ras_domination

random

6

1,204.241

1,225.742

-596.121

1,192.241

8.460

3

0.037

symptom

null

3

1,850.536

1,861.287

-922.268

1,844.536

symptom

random

6

1,850.595

1,872.096

-919.297

1,838.595

5.941

3

0.114

slof_work

null

3

1,526.193

1,536.943

-760.096

1,520.193

slof_work

random

6

1,531.167

1,552.668

-759.583

1,519.167

1.026

3

0.795

slof_relationship

null

3

1,643.400

1,654.150

-818.700

1,637.400

slof_relationship

random

6

1,647.866

1,669.367

-817.933

1,635.866

1.534

3

0.675

satisfaction

null

3

1,732.655

1,743.405

-863.327

1,726.655

satisfaction

random

6

1,730.802

1,752.303

-859.401

1,718.802

7.853

3

0.049

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,384.574

1,395.324

-689.287

1,378.574

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,388.196

1,409.697

-688.098

1,376.196

2.377

3

0.498

mhc_social

null

3

1,640.209

1,650.959

-817.104

1,634.209

mhc_social

random

6

1,642.649

1,664.150

-815.325

1,630.649

3.559

3

0.313

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,714.051

1,724.802

-854.026

1,708.051

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,716.828

1,738.329

-852.414

1,704.828

3.223

3

0.359

resilisnce

null

3

1,534.137

1,544.887

-764.068

1,528.137

resilisnce

random

6

1,528.785

1,550.285

-758.392

1,516.785

11.352

3

0.010

social_provision

null

3

1,272.003

1,282.754

-633.002

1,266.003

social_provision

random

6

1,271.077

1,292.578

-629.539

1,259.077

6.926

3

0.074

els_value_living

null

3

1,320.060

1,330.811

-657.030

1,314.060

els_value_living

random

6

1,322.228

1,343.729

-655.114

1,310.228

3.832

3

0.280

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,325.753

1,336.503

-659.876

1,319.753

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,325.229

1,346.730

-656.614

1,313.229

6.524

3

0.089

els

null

3

1,634.047

1,644.798

-814.024

1,628.047

els

random

6

1,633.865

1,655.366

-810.932

1,621.865

6.183

3

0.103

social_connect

null

3

1,873.877

1,884.627

-933.938

1,867.877

social_connect

random

6

1,870.100

1,891.601

-929.050

1,858.100

9.776

3

0.021

shs_agency

null

3

1,550.608

1,561.359

-772.304

1,544.608

shs_agency

random

6

1,551.241

1,572.742

-769.621

1,539.241

5.367

3

0.147

shs_pathway

null

3

1,446.765

1,457.515

-720.382

1,440.765

shs_pathway

random

6

1,448.587

1,470.088

-718.294

1,436.587

4.177

3

0.243

shs

null

3

1,842.408

1,853.158

-918.204

1,836.408

shs

random

6

1,843.403

1,864.904

-915.701

1,831.403

5.005

3

0.171

esteem

null

3

973.159

983.910

-483.580

967.159

esteem

random

6

978.791

1,000.292

-483.395

966.791

0.369

3

0.947

mlq_search

null

3

1,391.518

1,402.269

-692.759

1,385.518

mlq_search

random

6

1,393.914

1,415.415

-690.957

1,381.914

3.604

3

0.308

mlq_presence

null

3

1,492.546

1,503.297

-743.273

1,486.546

mlq_presence

random

6

1,494.183

1,515.684

-741.091

1,482.183

4.364

3

0.225

mlq

null

3

1,756.212

1,766.963

-875.106

1,750.212

mlq

random

6

1,757.957

1,779.458

-872.979

1,745.957

4.255

3

0.235

empower

null

3

1,478.857

1,489.608

-736.429

1,472.857

empower

random

6

1,480.131

1,501.632

-734.066

1,468.131

4.726

3

0.193

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,215.358

1,226.109

-604.679

1,209.358

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,217.913

1,239.414

-602.957

1,205.913

3.445

3

0.328

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,340.582

1,351.332

-667.291

1,334.582

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,342.232

1,363.733

-665.116

1,330.232

4.350

3

0.226

sss_affective

null

3

1,382.456

1,393.206

-688.228

1,376.456

sss_affective

random

6

1,378.822

1,400.323

-683.411

1,366.822

9.633

3

0.022

sss_behavior

null

3

1,387.131

1,397.881

-690.565

1,381.131

sss_behavior

random

6

1,389.510

1,411.011

-688.755

1,377.510

3.621

3

0.305

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,389.654

1,400.404

-691.827

1,383.654

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,391.187

1,412.688

-689.594

1,379.187

4.467

3

0.215

sss

null

3

1,917.222

1,927.972

-955.611

1,911.222

sss

random

6

1,916.235

1,937.736

-952.117

1,904.235

6.987

3

0.072

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

90

3.18 ± 1.19

89

3.10 ± 1.19

0.668

0.082

recovery_stage_a

2nd

47

3.28 ± 1.16

-0.111

40

3.54 ± 1.15

-0.465

0.303

-0.272

recovery_stage_b

1st

90

18.01 ± 2.90

89

17.76 ± 2.90

0.569

0.129

recovery_stage_b

2nd

47

17.73 ± 2.68

0.146

40

18.39 ± 2.64

-0.326

0.251

-0.343

ras_confidence

1st

90

29.63 ± 5.36

89

30.15 ± 5.36

0.523

-0.185

ras_confidence

2nd

47

30.34 ± 4.63

-0.255

40

32.11 ± 4.51

-0.707

0.073

-0.637

ras_willingness

1st

90

11.76 ± 2.01

89

11.82 ± 2.01

0.830

-0.055

ras_willingness

2nd

47

11.63 ± 1.79

0.104

40

12.21 ± 1.76

-0.332

0.130

-0.491

ras_goal

1st

90

17.33 ± 3.20

89

17.63 ± 3.20

0.537

-0.157

ras_goal

2nd

47

17.46 ± 2.86

-0.064

40

18.42 ± 2.81

-0.418

0.115

-0.510

ras_reliance

1st

90

13.11 ± 2.90

89

13.55 ± 2.90

0.313

-0.262

ras_reliance

2nd

47

13.39 ± 2.58

-0.168

40

14.33 ± 2.53

-0.462

0.091

-0.556

ras_domination

1st

90

10.01 ± 2.41

89

9.60 ± 2.41

0.249

0.246

ras_domination

2nd

47

9.92 ± 2.26

0.054

40

10.61 ± 2.24

-0.601

0.155

-0.409

symptom

1st

90

29.98 ± 9.14

89

29.74 ± 9.14

0.863

0.058

symptom

2nd

47

28.77 ± 7.62

0.297

40

28.01 ± 7.36

0.424

0.640

0.185

slof_work

1st

90

22.63 ± 4.74

89

22.07 ± 4.74

0.425

0.219

slof_work

2nd

47

22.36 ± 4.15

0.107

40

22.40 ± 4.05

-0.130

0.959

-0.018

slof_relationship

1st

90

25.13 ± 5.84

89

25.66 ± 5.84

0.545

-0.160

slof_relationship

2nd

47

24.71 ± 5.17

0.127

40

26.06 ± 5.06

-0.119

0.222

-0.406

satisfaction

1st

90

19.80 ± 7.11

89

21.16 ± 7.11

0.203

-0.391

satisfaction

2nd

47

20.39 ± 6.05

-0.171

40

22.79 ± 5.87

-0.471

0.062

-0.691

mhc_emotional

1st

90

10.66 ± 3.77

89

11.01 ± 3.77

0.528

-0.200

mhc_emotional

2nd

47

11.14 ± 3.18

-0.270

40

11.22 ± 3.08

-0.118

0.900

-0.048

mhc_social

1st

90

15.12 ± 5.86

89

15.10 ± 5.86

0.981

0.007

mhc_social

2nd

47

16.07 ± 5.12

-0.299

40

15.88 ± 4.99

-0.246

0.863

0.059

mhc_psychological

1st

90

21.77 ± 6.76

89

21.81 ± 6.76

0.967

-0.012

mhc_psychological

2nd

47

22.79 ± 5.88

-0.283

40

22.65 ± 5.74

-0.235

0.916

0.036

resilisnce

1st

90

16.01 ± 4.64

89

16.90 ± 4.64

0.202

-0.329

resilisnce

2nd

47

16.42 ± 4.13

-0.152

40

18.49 ± 4.05

-0.592

0.019

-0.769

social_provision

1st

90

13.26 ± 2.85

89

13.89 ± 2.85

0.140

-0.380

social_provision

2nd

47

12.85 ± 2.55

0.244

40

14.27 ± 2.49

-0.230

0.009

-0.854

els_value_living

1st

90

16.79 ± 3.21

89

17.22 ± 3.21

0.365

-0.253

els_value_living

2nd

47

17.01 ± 2.80

-0.126

40

17.77 ± 2.73

-0.318

0.199

-0.444

els_life_fulfill

1st

90

12.33 ± 3.31

89

13.15 ± 3.31

0.102

-0.500

els_life_fulfill

2nd

47

12.63 ± 2.82

-0.180

40

13.70 ± 2.74

-0.339

0.074

-0.659

els

1st

90

29.12 ± 6.02

89

30.37 ± 6.02

0.167

-0.449

els

2nd

47

29.66 ± 5.06

-0.194

40

31.39 ± 4.89

-0.367

0.107

-0.621

social_connect

1st

90

26.86 ± 9.35

89

26.01 ± 9.35

0.546

0.193

social_connect

2nd

47

27.03 ± 7.88

-0.040

40

23.25 ± 7.63

0.632

0.024

0.865

shs_agency

1st

90

13.92 ± 5.07

89

14.79 ± 5.07

0.255

-0.348

shs_agency

2nd

47

14.35 ± 4.32

-0.171

40

15.70 ± 4.19

-0.367

0.141

-0.544

shs_pathway

1st

90

15.52 ± 4.10

89

16.48 ± 4.10

0.118

-0.446

shs_pathway

2nd

47

16.01 ± 3.55

-0.227

40

16.81 ± 3.46

-0.153

0.288

-0.372

shs

1st

90

29.44 ± 8.76

89

31.27 ± 8.76

0.165

-0.423

shs

2nd

47

30.35 ± 7.47

-0.210

40

32.49 ± 7.26

-0.282

0.179

-0.494

esteem

1st

90

12.60 ± 1.55

89

12.61 ± 1.55

0.977

-0.006

esteem

2nd

47

12.55 ± 1.49

0.041

40

12.73 ± 1.48

-0.103

0.579

-0.149

mlq_search

1st

90

14.58 ± 3.47

89

15.21 ± 3.47

0.222

-0.273

mlq_search

2nd

47

15.35 ± 3.22

-0.333

40

15.10 ± 3.18

0.048

0.715

0.108

mlq_presence

1st

90

13.31 ± 4.33

89

13.48 ± 4.33

0.791

-0.067

mlq_presence

2nd

47

14.16 ± 3.87

-0.334

40

14.15 ± 3.80

-0.260

0.983

0.007

mlq

1st

90

27.89 ± 7.02

89

28.70 ± 7.02

0.442

-0.186

mlq

2nd

47

29.52 ± 6.37

-0.374

40

29.27 ± 6.26

-0.133

0.858

0.056

empower

1st

90

18.91 ± 4.34

89

19.48 ± 4.34

0.379

-0.249

empower

2nd

47

19.89 ± 3.77

-0.425

40

19.48 ± 3.67

0.000

0.614

0.176

ismi_resistance

1st

90

14.44 ± 2.51

89

14.40 ± 2.51

0.915

0.024

ismi_resistance

2nd

47

14.58 ± 2.31

-0.080

40

15.02 ± 2.28

-0.377

0.368

-0.272

ismi_discrimation

1st

90

11.74 ± 3.11

89

11.48 ± 3.11

0.575

0.118

ismi_discrimation

2nd

47

11.46 ± 2.93

0.130

40

10.68 ± 2.90

0.365

0.214

0.354

sss_affective

1st

90

10.08 ± 3.63

89

10.28 ± 3.63

0.709

-0.111

sss_affective

2nd

47

10.01 ± 3.12

0.036

40

9.05 ± 3.03

0.670

0.147

0.524

sss_behavior

1st

90

9.89 ± 3.70

89

9.80 ± 3.70

0.869

0.049

sss_behavior

2nd

47

9.58 ± 3.18

0.163

40

9.12 ± 3.09

0.362

0.491

0.248

sss_cognitive

1st

90

8.27 ± 3.64

89

8.51 ± 3.64

0.661

-0.121

sss_cognitive

2nd

47

8.19 ± 3.19

0.039

40

7.62 ± 3.11

0.449

0.397

0.290

sss

1st

90

28.23 ± 10.24

89

28.58 ± 10.24

0.819

-0.074

sss

2nd

47

27.74 ± 8.60

0.104

40

25.93 ± 8.32

0.562

0.319

0.384

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(240.60) = -0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.27)

2st

t(256.86) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(221.23) = -0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.61)

2st

t(257.62) = 1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.79)

ras_confidence

1st

t(202.70) = 0.64, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.09)

2st

t(261.96) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.17 to 3.70)

ras_willingness

1st

t(211.20) = 0.22, p = 0.830, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.66)

2st

t(260.13) = 1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.33)

ras_goal

1st

t(211.34) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.24)

2st

t(260.08) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.16)

ras_reliance

1st

t(209.64) = 1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.30)

2st

t(260.56) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.01)

ras_domination

1st

t(226.97) = -1.15, p = 0.249, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.29)

2st

t(256.77) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.64)

symptom

1st

t(195.52) = -0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.93 to 2.46)

2st

t(260.11) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.92 to 2.41)

slof_work

1st

t(205.67) = -0.80, p = 0.425, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.83)

2st

t(261.53) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.78)

slof_relationship

1st

t(208.40) = 0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.19 to 2.25)

2st

t(260.89) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.82 to 3.51)

satisfaction

1st

t(199.55) = 1.28, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.74 to 3.45)

2st

t(261.84) = 1.87, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.92)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(198.05) = 0.63, p = 0.528, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.47)

2st

t(261.45) = 0.13, p = 0.900, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.41)

mhc_social

1st

t(205.19) = -0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.71)

2st

t(261.62) = -0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.95)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(204.39) = 0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.03)

2st

t(261.76) = -0.11, p = 0.916, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.33)

resilisnce

1st

t(210.24) = 1.28, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.25)

2st

t(260.39) = 2.36, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.81)

social_provision

1st

t(210.40) = 1.48, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.47)

2st

t(260.35) = 2.62, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.49)

els_value_living

1st

t(204.75) = 0.91, p = 0.365, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.38)

2st

t(261.70) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.94)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(199.85) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.79)

2st

t(261.88) = 1.79, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.25)

els

1st

t(197.09) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.02)

2st

t(261.06) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.37 to 3.83)

social_connect

1st

t(197.65) = -0.60, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.60 to 1.91)

2st

t(261.30) = -2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-7.07 to -0.51)

shs_agency

1st

t(199.79) = 1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.36)

2st

t(261.87) = 1.48, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.45 to 3.15)

shs_pathway

1st

t(203.65) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.17)

2st

t(261.86) = 1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.29)

shs

1st

t(200.06) = 1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.76 to 4.41)

2st

t(261.91) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.98 to 5.25)

esteem

1st

t(237.54) = 0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.46)

2st

t(256.60) = 0.56, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.81)

mlq_search

1st

t(222.56) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.66)

2st

t(257.38) = -0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.10)

mlq_presence

1st

t(211.34) = 0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.45)

2st

t(260.09) = -0.02, p = 0.983, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.61)

mlq

1st

t(215.27) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.88)

2st

t(259.00) = -0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.43)

empower

1st

t(203.97) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.85)

2st

t(261.82) = -0.50, p = 0.614, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.98 to 1.17)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(219.80) = -0.11, p = 0.915, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.70)

2st

t(257.91) = 0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.42)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(228.25) = -0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.66)

2st

t(256.66) = -1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.45)

sss_affective

1st

t(201.34) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.27)

2st

t(262.00) = -1.45, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.26 to 0.34)

sss_behavior

1st

t(201.56) = -0.16, p = 0.869, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.00)

2st

t(262.00) = -0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.86)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(205.61) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.31)

2st

t(261.54) = -0.85, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.76)

sss

1st

t(196.93) = 0.23, p = 0.819, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.67 to 3.37)

2st

t(260.98) = -1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.39 to 1.77)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(127.33) = 2.27, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.82)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(111.94) = 1.55, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.43)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(99.84) = 3.28, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.77 to 3.15)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(105.18) = 1.56, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.89)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(105.28) = 1.96, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.59)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(104.18) = 2.16, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.49)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(116.11) = 2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.71)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(95.53) = -1.95, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.49 to 0.03)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(101.67) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.43)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(103.39) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.80)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(97.93) = 2.17, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.13)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(97.02) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.98)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(101.38) = 1.15, p = 0.510, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.13)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(100.88) = 1.09, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.38)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(104.56) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.45 to 2.74)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(104.67) = 1.08, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.09)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(101.10) = 1.48, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.28)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(98.11) = 1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.25)

els

1st vs 2st

t(96.45) = 1.69, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.22)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(96.79) = -2.91, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-4.65 to -0.88)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(98.07) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.98)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(100.42) = 0.71, p = 0.957, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.25)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(98.23) = 1.30, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.64 to 3.07)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(124.59) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.61)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(112.88) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.86)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(105.27) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.74)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(107.86) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.41)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(100.62) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.98)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(110.94) = 1.79, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.30)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(117.06) = -1.75, p = 0.164, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.10)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(99.00) = -3.10, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.02 to -0.44)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(99.14) = -1.68, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.12)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(101.63) = -2.09, p = 0.078, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.73 to -0.05)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(96.36) = -2.59, p = 0.022, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.69 to -0.62)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(120.72) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.46)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(107.90) = -0.75, p = 0.915, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.46)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(97.71) = 1.27, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.81)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(102.22) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.34)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(102.30) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.86)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(101.38) = 0.85, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.94)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(111.38) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.56)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(94.05) = -1.47, p = 0.288, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.84 to 0.42)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(99.27) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.74)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(100.71) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.88)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(96.09) = 0.85, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.98)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(95.32) = 1.34, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.19)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(99.01) = 1.50, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.20)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(98.59) = 1.42, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.45)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(101.70) = 0.76, p = 0.893, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.47)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(101.79) = -1.23, p = 0.442, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.25)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(98.78) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.90)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(96.24) = 0.90, p = 0.744, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.94)

els

1st vs 2st

t(94.84) = 0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.65)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(95.12) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.93)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(96.21) = 0.85, p = 0.793, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.41)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(98.21) = 1.13, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.34)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(96.35) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.63)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(118.44) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.40)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(108.69) = 1.70, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.68)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(102.30) = 1.69, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.86)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(104.47) = 1.90, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.07 to 3.33)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(98.37) = 2.13, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.89)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(107.06) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.77)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(112.18) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.56)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(97.01) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.66)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(97.12) = -0.81, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.44)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(99.23) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.71)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(94.76) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.40)

Plot

Clinical significance